The Big 'Let's sell our cars and take buses/ebikes instead' thread (warning: probably very dull)
Comments
-
Sure, not everything is progressive. But car ownership isn't a right. Not everyone has to own a car in built up areas.First.Aspect said:
Not sure it's what you'd call a progressive tax though is it? The richer you are, the more likely you aren't going to pay it.rick_chasey said:
Correct.First.Aspect said:It's just another taxation choice.
Along with ULEZ.
Gotta pay for the cost to society somehow.
I quite like the idea that they go up for auction, so you can really maximise the price. Free markets to the rescue.
Hard to think of a less progressive way to rax vehicle ownership, actually.
You could also counter it with an additional tax on car weight that is exempt for electric cars if you so wish? So you get a VED tax and then a big fat heavy car tax.
Generally I think car ownership does not reflect the cost of car ownership to society, so I'm all for increasing the cost to better reflect that.0 -
*Massive assumption alert*rick_chasey said:
Sure, why not. If you have rules about not sub-letting spaces, seems fine to me.First.Aspect said:
In Rictopia, if there is demand, anyone can buy the parking spot outside of your house. If its not you that's too bad.rick_chasey said:
Can only do that if you have a dropped kurb, no?First.Aspect said:
Paving over front gardens. Parking in the next nearest place that's not extortionate.kingstongraham said:
Getting voted outrick_chasey said:
...such as?First.Aspect said:Can you think of any unintended consequences?
And people do that parking in the next nearest place that isn't extortionate anyway (in this instance, in front of my house). The solution is to then widen it out to all parking spots, right?
Currently all the legal spots on my street are free and it's a total bumfight, so forgive me if I'm lacking sympathy for people who insist on having their car in front of their house.
I say make everyone pony up for them.
This reads that as a high earner you will be able to afford the charge and hope that the poorer won't therefore guaranteeing you a parking spot outside your house.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Well I did suggest car weight related taxation and I was ridiculed.rick_chasey said:
Sure, not everything is progressive. But car ownership isn't a right. Not everyone has to own a car in built up areas.First.Aspect said:
Not sure it's what you'd call a progressive tax though is it? The richer you are, the more likely you aren't going to pay it.rick_chasey said:
Correct.First.Aspect said:It's just another taxation choice.
Along with ULEZ.
Gotta pay for the cost to society somehow.
I quite like the idea that they go up for auction, so you can really maximise the price. Free markets to the rescue.
Hard to think of a less progressive way to rax vehicle ownership, actually.
You could also counter it with an additional tax on car weight that is exempt for electric cars if you so wish? So you get a VED tax and then a big fat heavy car tax.
Generally I think car ownership does not reflect the cost of car ownership to society, so I'm all for increasing the cost to better reflect that.
Cars are too heavy. This also means that they embody too many resources. Tax by weight and you encourage smaller, lighter and more efficient cars. Even for EVs, which I don't see a case for exempting for very much at all in the longer term, the choice should be whether you want to carry around a 300 mile battery in a 2.5t vehicle to do the school run, when all you really need is a 100 mile 1.5t vehicle. In turn, if that makes driving to your second home in Devon inconvenient, perhaps you will use the train.
0 -
So you need an equitable taxation method that doesn’t penalise people who live in smaller, more sustainable housing.rick_chasey said:
Sure, not everything is progressive. But car ownership isn't a right. Not everyone has to own a car in built up areas.First.Aspect said:
Not sure it's what you'd call a progressive tax though is it? The richer you are, the more likely you aren't going to pay it.rick_chasey said:
Correct.First.Aspect said:It's just another taxation choice.
Along with ULEZ.
Gotta pay for the cost to society somehow.
I quite like the idea that they go up for auction, so you can really maximise the price. Free markets to the rescue.
Hard to think of a less progressive way to rax vehicle ownership, actually.
You could also counter it with an additional tax on car weight that is exempt for electric cars if you so wish? So you get a VED tax and then a big fat heavy car tax.
Generally I think car ownership does not reflect the cost of car ownership to society, so I'm all for increasing the cost to better reflect that.
Ironic that those in smaller, generally less desirable housing will get hammered for the audacity of owning a car whilst somebody in a large house can have multiple cars without the charge.0 -
If you look at the bigger picture of what car drivers contribute by way of fuel duty, VAT, road tax, parking fees, congestion charges etc etc then most car driver will have a damn good laugh at your claim that 'we' are subsidising 'them'.rick_chasey said:
Yeah charge the spot to maximise revenues.First.Aspect said:
Okay. So selling them does that how?rick_chasey said:
The car parking spots the council runs are a good asset and they should aim to maximise revenues on them.First.Aspect said:
All of it?rick_chasey said:
What's to explain?First.Aspect said:
Nope, you are going to have to explain this one.rick_chasey said:Another way to reduce car usage would be for the council to auction off all the parking spots they own to the highest bidders, or at the very least, charged at the revenue-maximising rates.
Good way to stop taxpayers being cheated out of good money by car owners.
So rather than a flat fee of £30 or whatever per year, charge the price that maximises revenues.
Why should we subsidise cars if they’re so bad for us and the world?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Sounds very much like you just want to be able to park in front of your house.rick_chasey said:
Sure, why not. If you have rules about not sub-letting spaces, seems fine to me.First.Aspect said:
In Rictopia, if there is demand, anyone can buy the parking spot outside of your house. If its not you that's too bad.rick_chasey said:
Can only do that if you have a dropped kurb, no?First.Aspect said:
Paving over front gardens. Parking in the next nearest place that's not extortionate.kingstongraham said:
Getting voted outrick_chasey said:
...such as?First.Aspect said:Can you think of any unintended consequences?
And people do that parking in the next nearest place that isn't extortionate anyway (in this instance, in front of my house). The solution is to then widen it out to all parking spots, right?
Currently all the legal spots on my street are free and it's a total bumfight, so forgive me if I'm lacking sympathy for people who insist on having their car in front of their house.
I say make everyone pony up for them.
2 -
Sure but the value of a spot not outside your house shrinks pretty rapidly the further from the house you go. And in general, areas have more correlated earnings than random.pblakeney said:
*Massive assumption alert*rick_chasey said:
Sure, why not. If you have rules about not sub-letting spaces, seems fine to me.First.Aspect said:
In Rictopia, if there is demand, anyone can buy the parking spot outside of your house. If its not you that's too bad.rick_chasey said:
Can only do that if you have a dropped kurb, no?First.Aspect said:
Paving over front gardens. Parking in the next nearest place that's not extortionate.kingstongraham said:
Getting voted outrick_chasey said:
...such as?First.Aspect said:Can you think of any unintended consequences?
And people do that parking in the next nearest place that isn't extortionate anyway (in this instance, in front of my house). The solution is to then widen it out to all parking spots, right?
Currently all the legal spots on my street are free and it's a total bumfight, so forgive me if I'm lacking sympathy for people who insist on having their car in front of their house.
I say make everyone pony up for them.
This reads that as a high earner you will be able to afford the charge and hope that the poorer won't therefore guaranteeing you a parking spot outside your house.
I mean, the current system already penalises the poor who can’t afford the car to begin with so I don’t quite understand why everyone is being so prissy about this?0 -
Well we would see quite how much I wanted it in the auction, wouldn’t we?Dorset_Boy said:
Sounds very much like you just want to be able to park in front of your house.rick_chasey said:
Sure, why not. If you have rules about not sub-letting spaces, seems fine to me.First.Aspect said:
In Rictopia, if there is demand, anyone can buy the parking spot outside of your house. If its not you that's too bad.rick_chasey said:
Can only do that if you have a dropped kurb, no?First.Aspect said:
Paving over front gardens. Parking in the next nearest place that's not extortionate.kingstongraham said:
Getting voted outrick_chasey said:
...such as?First.Aspect said:Can you think of any unintended consequences?
And people do that parking in the next nearest place that isn't extortionate anyway (in this instance, in front of my house). The solution is to then widen it out to all parking spots, right?
Currently all the legal spots on my street are free and it's a total bumfight, so forgive me if I'm lacking sympathy for people who insist on having their car in front of their house.
I say make everyone pony up for them.0 -
We all drive Stevo, it’s not us and them.Stevo_666 said:
If you look at the bigger picture of what car drivers contribute by way of fuel duty, VAT, road tax, parking fees, congestion charges etc etc then most car driver will have a damn good laugh at your claim that 'we' are subsidising 'them'.rick_chasey said:
Yeah charge the spot to maximise revenues.First.Aspect said:
Okay. So selling them does that how?rick_chasey said:
The car parking spots the council runs are a good asset and they should aim to maximise revenues on them.First.Aspect said:
All of it?rick_chasey said:
What's to explain?First.Aspect said:
Nope, you are going to have to explain this one.rick_chasey said:Another way to reduce car usage would be for the council to auction off all the parking spots they own to the highest bidders, or at the very least, charged at the revenue-maximising rates.
Good way to stop taxpayers being cheated out of good money by car owners.
So rather than a flat fee of £30 or whatever per year, charge the price that maximises revenues.
Why should we subsidise cars if they’re so bad for us and the world?
And I think even taking all of that into account it’s not nearly expensive enough to cover the externalities.0 -
Hence the use of the ' ' around 'we' and 'them'...rick_chasey said:
We all drive Stevo, it’s not us and them.Stevo_666 said:
If you look at the bigger picture of what car drivers contribute by way of fuel duty, VAT, road tax, parking fees, congestion charges etc etc then most car driver will have a damn good laugh at your claim that 'we' are subsidising 'them'.rick_chasey said:
Yeah charge the spot to maximise revenues.First.Aspect said:
Okay. So selling them does that how?rick_chasey said:
The car parking spots the council runs are a good asset and they should aim to maximise revenues on them.First.Aspect said:
All of it?rick_chasey said:
What's to explain?First.Aspect said:
Nope, you are going to have to explain this one.rick_chasey said:Another way to reduce car usage would be for the council to auction off all the parking spots they own to the highest bidders, or at the very least, charged at the revenue-maximising rates.
Good way to stop taxpayers being cheated out of good money by car owners.
So rather than a flat fee of £30 or whatever per year, charge the price that maximises revenues.
Why should we subsidise cars if they’re so bad for us and the world?
And I think even taking all of that into account it’s not nearly expensive enough to cover the externalities.
Care to show me your workings to support your claim about not covering the costs?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Sounds like Rick needs to buy a better house, I.e. one with off street parking or a garage.Dorset_Boy said:
Sounds very much like you just want to be able to park in front of your house.rick_chasey said:
Sure, why not. If you have rules about not sub-letting spaces, seems fine to me.First.Aspect said:
In Rictopia, if there is demand, anyone can buy the parking spot outside of your house. If its not you that's too bad.rick_chasey said:
Can only do that if you have a dropped kurb, no?First.Aspect said:
Paving over front gardens. Parking in the next nearest place that's not extortionate.kingstongraham said:
Getting voted outrick_chasey said:
...such as?First.Aspect said:Can you think of any unintended consequences?
And people do that parking in the next nearest place that isn't extortionate anyway (in this instance, in front of my house). The solution is to then widen it out to all parking spots, right?
Currently all the legal spots on my street are free and it's a total bumfight, so forgive me if I'm lacking sympathy for people who insist on having their car in front of their house.
I say make everyone pony up for them."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I thought the point of the thread was that we don't all drive.rick_chasey said:
We all drive Stevo, it’s not us and them.Stevo_666 said:
If you look at the bigger picture of what car drivers contribute by way of fuel duty, VAT, road tax, parking fees, congestion charges etc etc then most car driver will have a damn good laugh at your claim that 'we' are subsidising 'them'.rick_chasey said:
Yeah charge the spot to maximise revenues.First.Aspect said:
Okay. So selling them does that how?rick_chasey said:
The car parking spots the council runs are a good asset and they should aim to maximise revenues on them.First.Aspect said:
All of it?rick_chasey said:
What's to explain?First.Aspect said:
Nope, you are going to have to explain this one.rick_chasey said:Another way to reduce car usage would be for the council to auction off all the parking spots they own to the highest bidders, or at the very least, charged at the revenue-maximising rates.
Good way to stop taxpayers being cheated out of good money by car owners.
So rather than a flat fee of £30 or whatever per year, charge the price that maximises revenues.
Why should we subsidise cars if they’re so bad for us and the world?
And I think even taking all of that into account it’s not nearly expensive enough to cover the externalities.0 -
I thought the point was that some people don't want to drive (and/or impose their wishes on others) ?TheBigBean said:
I thought the point of the thread was that we don't all drive.rick_chasey said:
We all drive Stevo, it’s not us and them.Stevo_666 said:
If you look at the bigger picture of what car drivers contribute by way of fuel duty, VAT, road tax, parking fees, congestion charges etc etc then most car driver will have a damn good laugh at your claim that 'we' are subsidising 'them'.rick_chasey said:
Yeah charge the spot to maximise revenues.First.Aspect said:
Okay. So selling them does that how?rick_chasey said:
The car parking spots the council runs are a good asset and they should aim to maximise revenues on them.First.Aspect said:
All of it?rick_chasey said:
What's to explain?First.Aspect said:
Nope, you are going to have to explain this one.rick_chasey said:Another way to reduce car usage would be for the council to auction off all the parking spots they own to the highest bidders, or at the very least, charged at the revenue-maximising rates.
Good way to stop taxpayers being cheated out of good money by car owners.
So rather than a flat fee of £30 or whatever per year, charge the price that maximises revenues.
Why should we subsidise cars if they’re so bad for us and the world?
And I think even taking all of that into account it’s not nearly expensive enough to cover the externalities."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Down here we call it a 'bunfight'. Don't know what you city types get up to but it sounds uncomfortable.rick_chasey said:
Sure, why not. If you have rules about not sub-letting spaces, seems fine to me.First.Aspect said:
In Rictopia, if there is demand, anyone can buy the parking spot outside of your house. If its not you that's too bad.rick_chasey said:
Can only do that if you have a dropped kurb, no?First.Aspect said:
Paving over front gardens. Parking in the next nearest place that's not extortionate.kingstongraham said:
Getting voted outrick_chasey said:
...such as?First.Aspect said:Can you think of any unintended consequences?
And people do that parking in the next nearest place that isn't extortionate anyway (in this instance, in front of my house). The solution is to then widen it out to all parking spots, right?
Currently all the legal spots on my street are free and it's a total bumfight, so forgive me if I'm lacking sympathy for people who insist on having their car in front of their house.
I say make everyone pony up for them.Sometimes. Maybe. Possibly.
1 -
Garages don't count as parking spaces. You may laugh but this is standard planning policy and given that cars no longer rust away to nothing if left outside there's some logic to it.TheBigBean said:
You say that, but my neighbours, for example, park their car on the street to avoid wasting valuable garage space. Presumably there is a price at which they wouldn't and obviously not that many have garages as an option.rjsterry said:
You're not listening. Islington charges residents nearly a grand a year per vehicle to park outside their home with significant reductions for low-emission vehicles. There are almost no driveways in Islington so everyone with a car is paying that. Islington is as champagne socialist as it gets with a high proportion of EVs and the council is desperate for cash so they *will* already be milking this for as much as they can politically get away with. There is not some untapped reserve of cash to be tapped.rick_chasey said:
Well right now we don't have the public finances to support non-car travel, so why not charge people for car travel in order to help fund non-car travel investment?rjsterry said:
Do you want people to stop using their car or raise revenue.rick_chasey said:Stand by it. They should maximise revenues, and charge as much as they can for those spots.
Nice revenue raiser, reduces the incentives to own a car, win win.
Pick *one*.
It also penalises owning two cars, which I am a fan of too.
It takes up road space and causes problems for pedestrians etc, so they should be charged for the additional negative externalities they cause.
In general the problems cars cause are not anywhere near fully paid for by the car user; the pollution and adverse effect on health, the cost on the infrastructure etc etc. So this is a simple small way to go towards redressing the balance.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
photonic69 said:
Down here we call it a 'bunfight'. Don't know what you city types get up to but it sounds uncomfortable.rick_chasey said:
Sure, why not. If you have rules about not sub-letting spaces, seems fine to me.First.Aspect said:
In Rictopia, if there is demand, anyone can buy the parking spot outside of your house. If its not you that's too bad.rick_chasey said:
Can only do that if you have a dropped kurb, no?First.Aspect said:
Paving over front gardens. Parking in the next nearest place that's not extortionate.kingstongraham said:
Getting voted outrick_chasey said:
...such as?First.Aspect said:Can you think of any unintended consequences?
And people do that parking in the next nearest place that isn't extortionate anyway (in this instance, in front of my house). The solution is to then widen it out to all parking spots, right?
Currently all the legal spots on my street are free and it's a total bumfight, so forgive me if I'm lacking sympathy for people who insist on having their car in front of their house.
I say make everyone pony up for them.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
A lot of garages are too small to store a modern car in.rjsterry said:
Garages don't count as parking spaces. You may laugh but this is standard planning policy and given that cars no longer rust away to nothing if left outside there's some logic to it.TheBigBean said:
You say that, but my neighbours, for example, park their car on the street to avoid wasting valuable garage space. Presumably there is a price at which they wouldn't and obviously not that many have garages as an option.rjsterry said:
You're not listening. Islington charges residents nearly a grand a year per vehicle to park outside their home with significant reductions for low-emission vehicles. There are almost no driveways in Islington so everyone with a car is paying that. Islington is as champagne socialist as it gets with a high proportion of EVs and the council is desperate for cash so they *will* already be milking this for as much as they can politically get away with. There is not some untapped reserve of cash to be tapped.rick_chasey said:
Well right now we don't have the public finances to support non-car travel, so why not charge people for car travel in order to help fund non-car travel investment?rjsterry said:
Do you want people to stop using their car or raise revenue.rick_chasey said:Stand by it. They should maximise revenues, and charge as much as they can for those spots.
Nice revenue raiser, reduces the incentives to own a car, win win.
Pick *one*.
It also penalises owning two cars, which I am a fan of too.
It takes up road space and causes problems for pedestrians etc, so they should be charged for the additional negative externalities they cause.
In general the problems cars cause are not anywhere near fully paid for by the car user; the pollution and adverse effect on health, the cost on the infrastructure etc etc. So this is a simple small way to go towards redressing the balance.
0 -
Sure, but my point was that he was happy to pay for the parking permit when he didn't have to.rjsterry said:
Garages don't count as parking spaces. You may laugh but this is standard planning policy and given that cars no longer rust away to nothing if left outside there's some logic to it.TheBigBean said:
You say that, but my neighbours, for example, park their car on the street to avoid wasting valuable garage space. Presumably there is a price at which they wouldn't and obviously not that many have garages as an option.rjsterry said:
You're not listening. Islington charges residents nearly a grand a year per vehicle to park outside their home with significant reductions for low-emission vehicles. There are almost no driveways in Islington so everyone with a car is paying that. Islington is as champagne socialist as it gets with a high proportion of EVs and the council is desperate for cash so they *will* already be milking this for as much as they can politically get away with. There is not some untapped reserve of cash to be tapped.rick_chasey said:
Well right now we don't have the public finances to support non-car travel, so why not charge people for car travel in order to help fund non-car travel investment?rjsterry said:
Do you want people to stop using their car or raise revenue.rick_chasey said:Stand by it. They should maximise revenues, and charge as much as they can for those spots.
Nice revenue raiser, reduces the incentives to own a car, win win.
Pick *one*.
It also penalises owning two cars, which I am a fan of too.
It takes up road space and causes problems for pedestrians etc, so they should be charged for the additional negative externalities they cause.
In general the problems cars cause are not anywhere near fully paid for by the car user; the pollution and adverse effect on health, the cost on the infrastructure etc etc. So this is a simple small way to go towards redressing the balance.0 -
So that's a "yes" then.rick_chasey said:
Sure but the value of a spot not outside your house shrinks pretty rapidly the further from the house you go. And in general, areas have more correlated earnings than random.pblakeney said:
*Massive assumption alert*rick_chasey said:
Sure, why not. If you have rules about not sub-letting spaces, seems fine to me.First.Aspect said:
In Rictopia, if there is demand, anyone can buy the parking spot outside of your house. If its not you that's too bad.rick_chasey said:
Can only do that if you have a dropped kurb, no?First.Aspect said:
Paving over front gardens. Parking in the next nearest place that's not extortionate.kingstongraham said:
Getting voted outrick_chasey said:
...such as?First.Aspect said:Can you think of any unintended consequences?
And people do that parking in the next nearest place that isn't extortionate anyway (in this instance, in front of my house). The solution is to then widen it out to all parking spots, right?
Currently all the legal spots on my street are free and it's a total bumfight, so forgive me if I'm lacking sympathy for people who insist on having their car in front of their house.
I say make everyone pony up for them.
This reads that as a high earner you will be able to afford the charge and hope that the poorer won't therefore guaranteeing you a parking spot outside your house.
I mean, the current system already penalises the poor who can’t afford the car to begin with so I don’t quite understand why everyone is being so prissy about this?The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Yeah, relative to your neighbours.pblakeney said:
So that's a "yes" then.rick_chasey said:
Sure but the value of a spot not outside your house shrinks pretty rapidly the further from the house you go. And in general, areas have more correlated earnings than random.pblakeney said:
*Massive assumption alert*rick_chasey said:
Sure, why not. If you have rules about not sub-letting spaces, seems fine to me.First.Aspect said:
In Rictopia, if there is demand, anyone can buy the parking spot outside of your house. If its not you that's too bad.rick_chasey said:
Can only do that if you have a dropped kurb, no?First.Aspect said:
Paving over front gardens. Parking in the next nearest place that's not extortionate.kingstongraham said:
Getting voted outrick_chasey said:
...such as?First.Aspect said:Can you think of any unintended consequences?
And people do that parking in the next nearest place that isn't extortionate anyway (in this instance, in front of my house). The solution is to then widen it out to all parking spots, right?
Currently all the legal spots on my street are free and it's a total bumfight, so forgive me if I'm lacking sympathy for people who insist on having their car in front of their house.
I say make everyone pony up for them.
This reads that as a high earner you will be able to afford the charge and hope that the poorer won't therefore guaranteeing you a parking spot outside your house.
I mean, the current system already penalises the poor who can’t afford the car to begin with so I don’t quite understand why everyone is being so prissy about this?0 -
If parking spaces need to be more valuable than residential property, in London, then I don't think this is going to work.TheBigBean said:
Sure, but my point was that he was happy to pay for the parking permit when he didn't have to.rjsterry said:
Garages don't count as parking spaces. You may laugh but this is standard planning policy and given that cars no longer rust away to nothing if left outside there's some logic to it.TheBigBean said:
You say that, but my neighbours, for example, park their car on the street to avoid wasting valuable garage space. Presumably there is a price at which they wouldn't and obviously not that many have garages as an option.rjsterry said:
You're not listening. Islington charges residents nearly a grand a year per vehicle to park outside their home with significant reductions for low-emission vehicles. There are almost no driveways in Islington so everyone with a car is paying that. Islington is as champagne socialist as it gets with a high proportion of EVs and the council is desperate for cash so they *will* already be milking this for as much as they can politically get away with. There is not some untapped reserve of cash to be tapped.rick_chasey said:
Well right now we don't have the public finances to support non-car travel, so why not charge people for car travel in order to help fund non-car travel investment?rjsterry said:
Do you want people to stop using their car or raise revenue.rick_chasey said:Stand by it. They should maximise revenues, and charge as much as they can for those spots.
Nice revenue raiser, reduces the incentives to own a car, win win.
Pick *one*.
It also penalises owning two cars, which I am a fan of too.
It takes up road space and causes problems for pedestrians etc, so they should be charged for the additional negative externalities they cause.
In general the problems cars cause are not anywhere near fully paid for by the car user; the pollution and adverse effect on health, the cost on the infrastructure etc etc. So this is a simple small way to go towards redressing the balance.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I'm confident he wouldn't pay £10k pa to park on the street.rjsterry said:
If parking spaces need to be more valuable than residential property, in London, then I don't think this is going to work.TheBigBean said:
Sure, but my point was that he was happy to pay for the parking permit when he didn't have to.rjsterry said:
Garages don't count as parking spaces. You may laugh but this is standard planning policy and given that cars no longer rust away to nothing if left outside there's some logic to it.TheBigBean said:
You say that, but my neighbours, for example, park their car on the street to avoid wasting valuable garage space. Presumably there is a price at which they wouldn't and obviously not that many have garages as an option.rjsterry said:
You're not listening. Islington charges residents nearly a grand a year per vehicle to park outside their home with significant reductions for low-emission vehicles. There are almost no driveways in Islington so everyone with a car is paying that. Islington is as champagne socialist as it gets with a high proportion of EVs and the council is desperate for cash so they *will* already be milking this for as much as they can politically get away with. There is not some untapped reserve of cash to be tapped.rick_chasey said:
Well right now we don't have the public finances to support non-car travel, so why not charge people for car travel in order to help fund non-car travel investment?rjsterry said:
Do you want people to stop using their car or raise revenue.rick_chasey said:Stand by it. They should maximise revenues, and charge as much as they can for those spots.
Nice revenue raiser, reduces the incentives to own a car, win win.
Pick *one*.
It also penalises owning two cars, which I am a fan of too.
It takes up road space and causes problems for pedestrians etc, so they should be charged for the additional negative externalities they cause.
In general the problems cars cause are not anywhere near fully paid for by the car user; the pollution and adverse effect on health, the cost on the infrastructure etc etc. So this is a simple small way to go towards redressing the balance.0 -
He’d sure as he’ll be telling us how unfair it was Boomers didn’t have to pay it.TheBigBean said:
I'm confident he wouldn't pay £10k pa to park on the street.rjsterry said:
If parking spaces need to be more valuable than residential property, in London, then I don't think this is going to work.TheBigBean said:
Sure, but my point was that he was happy to pay for the parking permit when he didn't have to.rjsterry said:
Garages don't count as parking spaces. You may laugh but this is standard planning policy and given that cars no longer rust away to nothing if left outside there's some logic to it.TheBigBean said:
You say that, but my neighbours, for example, park their car on the street to avoid wasting valuable garage space. Presumably there is a price at which they wouldn't and obviously not that many have garages as an option.rjsterry said:
You're not listening. Islington charges residents nearly a grand a year per vehicle to park outside their home with significant reductions for low-emission vehicles. There are almost no driveways in Islington so everyone with a car is paying that. Islington is as champagne socialist as it gets with a high proportion of EVs and the council is desperate for cash so they *will* already be milking this for as much as they can politically get away with. There is not some untapped reserve of cash to be tapped.rick_chasey said:
Well right now we don't have the public finances to support non-car travel, so why not charge people for car travel in order to help fund non-car travel investment?rjsterry said:
Do you want people to stop using their car or raise revenue.rick_chasey said:Stand by it. They should maximise revenues, and charge as much as they can for those spots.
Nice revenue raiser, reduces the incentives to own a car, win win.
Pick *one*.
It also penalises owning two cars, which I am a fan of too.
It takes up road space and causes problems for pedestrians etc, so they should be charged for the additional negative externalities they cause.
In general the problems cars cause are not anywhere near fully paid for by the car user; the pollution and adverse effect on health, the cost on the infrastructure etc etc. So this is a simple small way to go towards redressing the balance.1 -
You’s want to move north of Oxford and get double drives.
I wouldn’t consider buying a house without off street parking.0 -
Far enough in any direction from the urban rabbit hutches will do.skyblueamateur said:You’s want to move north of Oxford and get double drives.
I wouldn’t consider buying a house without off street parking."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
You pays yer money and takes yer choice in Topsham. I've got not drive, no garage, no on-street parking within 100m at best, but the house is still silly money. I've no idea what a garage would cost now, but probably more than I paid for my house in 1992. Obviously it has other attractions other than easy parking for everyone.0
-
I'll stick this in here, don't know if any other train operators do something similar but it's pretty good https://tfw.signalbox.io/?location=@52.45003,-4.06383,7.1Z
It does seem to cover the whole network but only shows the trains in Wales in colour.0 -
It would be worth more if it had private parking or a garage, obviously. I would never consider a house without adequate private parking, but as you say, you pays yer money and takes yer choice.briantrumpet said:You pays yer money and takes yer choice in Topsham. I've got not drive, no garage, no on-street parking within 100m at best, but the house is still silly money. I've no idea what a garage would cost now, but probably more than I paid for my house in 1992. Obviously it has other attractions other than easy parking for everyone.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
10 pubs, for startersbriantrumpet said:You pays yer money and takes yer choice in Topsham. I've got not drive, no garage, no on-street parking within 100m at best, but the house is still silly money. I've no idea what a garage would cost now, but probably more than I paid for my house in 1992. Obviously it has other attractions other than easy parking for everyone.
1 -
Currently showing 3 live trains from Cambridge to London all running on time.Pross said:I'll stick this in here, don't know if any other train operators do something similar but it's pretty good https://tfw.signalbox.io/?location=@52.45003,-4.06383,7.1Z
It does seem to cover the whole network but only shows the trains in Wales in colour.0
